digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at popularmechanics.com

Dissent Grows as Scientists Oppose NASA’s New Moon Mission

popularmechanics.com — NASA's current plan for manned space exploration focuses on establishing a base on the moon, as a stepping stone for a visit to Mars. The initiative has been trumpeted by the Bush administration. But trouble is brewing as a growing group of former mission managers, planetary scientists and astronauts argues against any manned moon mission at all.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 24, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

128 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • take2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+41I believe that you will always be able to find NASA employees that want the space program to move in different directions. Consensus of a group that large is nearly impossible. It doesn't mean that Bush is right or the group at NASA is right. It means that there will be factions whenever we try to decide how to spend billions of dollars on space projects.
  • TheCash, on 01/24/2008, -4/+40Anytime I hear talk of anyone short changing the need for manned missions into space, and the importance of space exploration, I think of this line from the first season of Babylon 5:
    "Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea and take care of our own problems at home?"
    "No. We have to stay here and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu and Einstein and Morobuto and Buddy Holly and Aristophenes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
  • narehart, on 01/24/2008, -8/+30Bush promoting scientific exploration? There must be oil in the moon.
  • inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+16Actually, war has been a major contributor to technology since the beginning of humanity.
  • Cybie, on 01/24/2008, -1/+15There's ALWAYS been space scientist opposed to the manned space program. They think it should all be done w/robots. That is, until telescope needs to be repaired.
  • AnthonyA7, on 01/24/2008, -1/+15Shut up and rant about it elsewhere. I'm here to read about NASA.
  • rory096, on 01/24/2008, -3/+14There are some useful fuels, actually.
  • incandescent, on 01/24/2008, -6/+17If NASA doesn't do it someone else will. Do you really want the Chinese or Indians to own the moon?
  • pyrotix, on 01/24/2008, -1/+12It is inarguable that taking humankind beyond the earth should not only be one of our greatest priorities, but that it is the destiny of life itself.
    I suppose this may be selfish, but should it not be in our lifetimes that people branch out into the Solar System, colonizing the moon, Mars and the earth's orbit?
  • inactive, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9You know, this science isn't necessarily a waste. One of my friends is at AMES and is working with carbon nanotube materials to ensure that everything going on the spacecrafts are as light as possible- you cannot tell me this kind of research only benefits science rocketman ego.
  • micropublisher, on 01/24/2008, -5/+14"'Having a U.S. presence on the moon at least gives us the chance to keep an eye on the standard of conduct,' Walker says. 'And that’s pretty damned important.' In military terms, the moon can be seen as the ultimate high ground. A nation could set up hard-to-defeat microwave or laser weapons platforms aimed at in-orbit satellites."

    And in the long tradition of space races, it all comes down to war. After all, the space race of the 60s was just an extension of the arms race...
  • sabach, on 01/24/2008, -1/+9It was established as international law in the 70's that no one nation can "own" the moon or any other extraterrestrial body.
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8The budget for one year in Iraq is hundreds of Billions of dollars.
    That would be enough to put people on the Moon, that "Alternative Plan" asteroid, and Mars, on a permanent basis.
  • DrLeePhD, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8I think their opposition is based on cost and that there's better ways to spend half a billion dollars of federal cash, or at least they would rather see THEIR projects get a half billion dollar grant. Personally I think it's be way cool to have a moon base and compared to what we're spending on war, a half billion for science isn't that bad a deal. as a previous poster said there's bound to be some dissent among a scientific community that large.
  • Pixelante, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6Your head is full of used toilet paper, and it shows.
  • buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6I think that a moon base would be great for science and for commerce. The industrial effort could replace the war effort for a much better return on our investment. We could pay for the operating cost of the base by renting out space to commercial operations.

    Once we are up on the moon we could launch missions to the rest of the solar system for 1/10 the cost of our current space program.

    We could build enormous telescopes on the moon that would be better than any telescope we have ever had. We could build solar arrays that could generate massive amounts of power for the station. We can get oxygen, hydrogen, and metals from the lunar regolith on the moon.

    But we could also do the other programs too. It doesn't need to be a choice between options.
  • TheCash, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5That's sort of the point of this speech... even 500 years into the future, there are still people saying exactly what you just did for one reason or another. I think Kennedy said it best, "We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard." Besides, think of the technology we will need to develop for these missions, and how much of that same technology can then be used to accomplish the goals you have in mind. Solar panels, hydrogen fuel cells, all of these are products of the space program.
  • nospinhere, on 01/24/2008, -2/+7That's what they said 20 years ago.
  • masterm1nd, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6And that's almost exactly how long it takes to prepare such explorations.
  • wankelrotary, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6So sad. NASA used to make headlines for landing men on the moon, amazing technological and scientific breakthroughs. Now they make headlines with diapered maniac astronauts and embarrassing mistakes.
  • Terr01, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4You've got to admit, at least right now it's got a certain oomph to it that you don't get from getting hit by a car.

    Figuratively speaking.
  • Evocati, on 01/24/2008, -2/+6Some people complain about how much money goes into the space programs, but they forget that much of the research made in the technological and medical fields benefits us all. A sum of the money is probably wasted though.
  • TheCash, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5Velcro and Tang FTW
  • STKD, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4Welcome to rubbish that was disproven years ago. Even Van Allen himself said you would need to spend MONTHS in the Van Allen belt for it to have any effect (source. Carrying The Fire by Michael Collins - written very shortly after the Moon landing so hardly new news). Of course you could have learned this yourself by reading, but you conspiracy nuts are surprisingly reluctant to do so. Gee, I wonder why that is...
  • Drood, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4"And in the long tradition of the human race, it all comes down to war."

    Fixed that for you.
  • CrimsonBlur, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4Seriously... but who ever said JMS is a bad writer?
  • lostmongoose, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4velcro predates space exploration research
  • Drood, on 01/24/2008, -3/+6And there are people who say JMS is a poor writer... They can go ***** themselves.
  • masterm1nd, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3NASA has inadvertently created a lot more than space blankets and freeze dried ice cream.
  • masterm1nd, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3You do have a point in that a manned mission cost a lot more to do the same thing as an unmanned mission.
  • Matri, on 01/24/2008, -2/+5Or the robots themselves.
  • CrimsonBlur, on 01/24/2008, -2/+5What are the long-term benefits of landing on an asteroid as opposed to a permanent base on the moon? I don't really understand their point there. If the government does a 180 and suddenly OK's a mission to make a base on the moon as a stepping stone to get to Mars, you freaking make it happen!

    Now that said, there is a very valid argument that NASA is currently underfunded to take on a mission of this magnitude. There are also concerns about the direction they are going with certain technologies and initiatives. In that sense I do believe there is need for debate and improvement. However, I believe that debate should be about how we can make this happen as soon as possible; both the lunar base and mission to Mars.

    The main point these scientist are making, I think, is that the Bush administration is rushing into this with an inadequate plan and insufficient funding. They're doing this to ensure that the US is the first country to militarize space, I'm sure of it. If their goal was truly space exploration, there would be no need to go ahead so hastily with this mandate without better planning and funding.
  • Terr01, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2You're probably right, but please never say "more busier" again.
  • SuperMoses, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3I think it depends on the category. The more busier categories probably require 200+
  • Drood, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Clearly they've never seen Empire Strikes Back.
  • Charbax, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Let's go to Mars, now.
  • Neiby, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there."
  • rumdrunk, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4whoops dugg by accident, thought it was an anti scientology story !
  • wastelander, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3They aren't complaining about money being spent on space programs, the complaint is on how it is being spent (and particularly NOT being spent).
    The moon mission has very little scientific merit--especially when compared with what might be accomplished by unmanned space exploration. Its basically a "feel good" publicity stunt and welfare for the aerospace industry. There is SO MUCH to learn out there.. why are we wasting our time and money going back to the moon? How about a sample return trip to Mars? How about more sophisticated Mars rovers to dig into the permafrost and see if anything is living there? How about exploring the clouds of Venus or the Oceans of Europa? So much more could be accomplished with what is being wasted on the manned space program.
  • JQP123, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Let behind in a meaningless quest for publicity and prestige? A really mature nation would have no problem with that.
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3"benefits of being able to sling asteroids into orbit and use them for mining..."

    Not a good idea.
  • masterm1nd, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Helium-3, but yeah. Anyways I think it's Bush who wants to land on an asteroid INSTEAD of going to the moon.
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4It was one of Bush's diversions for the Iraq war. Back before the surge things were looking pretty bleak.
    Then he comes up with this out of the blue.
  • masterm1nd, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Friend 'group' diggs have less weight. So this was dugg by a more diverse group of people. Thus in theory being more important/interesting than ron paul/apple stories with an equal number of diggs.
  • sharkd, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3He wants a legacy -- I think he envisions people replaying his speech announcing the Mars mission, once we triumphantly set foot upon another planet, in the same manner as we replay Kennedy's May 25, 1961 speech to Congress and that it will salvage his reputation when "history" is written.

    Unfortunately, given that the rocket he's basing his legacy on has an inherent tendency to fly backwards (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I ), he'll probably look even more like a buffoon once Project Constellation fails miserably (hopefully, without cost to human life).
  • STKD, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4Uh... we have a group already paid and focused on doing that. Several dedicated groups worldwide, in fact. It is not NASA's mandate to purely focus on such things, nor should it be `just because they're there`.
    That's like saying all scientists should focus on (for example) curing cancer to the exclusion of all else.
  • didgital, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Most of NASA (the unmanned space centers) are paying the price dearly for what the Moon mission is doing to the budget. A lot of badly needed Earth science missions were scrapped, the nuclear propulsion project (Prometheus) was tossed, and I'm sure there are plenty of other victims. Going to the Moon is not a scientifically logical step to get to Mars. This was just GWB's way of trying to look like JFK for a minute. Nice try.
  • JQP123, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1"That is, until telescope needs to be repaired."

    LOL! For the money we've wasted on the space shuttle, we could have built and launched a hundred telescopes.
  • TheCash, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1That's universal entropy for ya.
  • StaticThunder, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1And then after you establish your space colonies, the universe undergoes the heat death, or the cold death, or the gnab gib, and it was still "for nothing" and you possibly made a lot of people more miserable than necessary because you thought you had to propagate across the galaxy "so it would mean something."

    I think its entirely possible that life means something other than you think it means.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.